Of course that’s the only thing you focused on, deflecting is a hell of aMost people????
tactic lol. Look you made your point your a hater , it’s all good 
Audiofreak71
Last edited:
-
Feeling lucky? Check out the AK 24th Anniversary Giveaway thread and join in the fun!
How old were you when you stopped listening to new music?
- Thread starter Chris Brown
- Start date
tactic lol. Look you made your point your a hater , it’s all good Audiofreak71
Late Boomer
Super Member
Before the war... Good times.
I find that unlikely. It is rare for a Singaporean of her generation or later to speak no English at all, and one of her parents was not Chinese, but of Ceylonese/Indian ethnicity. The most likely main language of communication between the parents is English, and even if not, the odds are against it being Chinese.
It would be quite difficult with her family background and a typical school/social life in Singapore to have acquired no English by adulthood. That's without even digging into her bio, which indicates a middle class upbringing by two literate, educated parents (not a certainty back then). She went to schools and university that are either English-language curricula or at the very least would have provided plenty of opportunities to be exposed to English.
I suspect a more accurate picture of her approach to singing in English is that she worked at removing traces of a Singapore accent. That would be not at all unusual for singers from that part of the world when singing in English (likewise Hong Kong, which has its own accent), and to my mind is not significantly different from the way actors in the 1950s and earlier, British in particular, learned to shed their regional accents - if they wanted work.
Snow
Super Member
Well she graduated with honors with a major in guess what English then went on to study creative writing in English at Harvard so hard for me to think she went to all that trouble to both read and write a language that she cant speak. I would be willing to wager she actually speaks it and writes better then I do, English is not my first language either but I can speak it and read and write it somewhat, my writing skills are likely the worst hence a lot of mistakes when I write.
Regards Snow
Snow
Super Member
Not sure what is so hard to grasp. I stated it was an old song sang by a new talent that is what makes it new even though you feel she has no talent and looked stupid and ruined the song and that she should chosen opera, you must be deaf in addition to appearing to be an ass because the raspy growl she has in her voice starting at 47 secs or so is not suited for any opera I have ever heard trust me on this when I say running a kid down that has more talent then you only makes you appear stupid not her. I get you may be having a bad day but take a break if you cant be nice .
Late Boomer
Super Member
It does not.
Snow
Super Member
Lmao so she is not a new talent with a voice that is new to you? Many artists have variations of their songs each one is slightly different if not way different, in my mind each variation is new music, every time a new to me artist artist sings a cover of someone else's music it is new music in my mind unless their voices sound identical because it sounds different, no different then the different mixes sang by the original artist being new music
Last edited:
Late Boomer
Super Member
I don't consider a different performance of the same work new music. I guess, this is where we disagree.
I think you would be in the minority on that opinion though. Any time a song is recorded, it's new. It may be derivative, or a completely different version, it's still new. A good example is "Red, Red, Wine". The song was made famous by UB40 when it went to #1 in the US in 1988.
Probably most aren't aware that it was actually Neil Diamond who wrote that song. Neil released his version in 1967. UB40's hit was considered "new music" by virtually everyone when it came out, for good reason (even though Neil's version isn't that hugely different).
Last edited:
Well it's not compulsory.
But the Beatles, Stones, and Dylan - the people who got the whole shebang rolling - started out with a heavy reliance on material from artists like Chuck Berry and Woody Guthrie. By the time we get to Cream and Led Zeppelin, they were looking back as far as the 1920s. Countless others did the same. Statesboro Blues was originally from Blind Willie McTell in 1928, but a staple for the Allman Brothers over 40 years later. A lot of people heard blues for the first time this way and wouldn't have had much time for arguments that these were not new artists because they covered old songs. The 1960s wouldn't have been the 1960s without the 1920s.
At the time, I'd have called John Renbourn, Fairport Convention, the Animals, John Mayall etc. new music because they were new artists releasing new records. By practically the same measure, I'd call whichever classical violinists today have succeeded Jascha Heifetz, Yehudi Menuhin and Nigel Kennedy new because they and their recordings are new. I wouldn't personally gain anything from an over-literal interpretation of new that extended to the music itself and attempted to exclude all else.
Late Boomer
Super Member
No. The song is still the same. The performance is different. It may be different "music" in some loose sense, but for the purposes of authorship it is the same song.
It is up to experts to decide what is "the same"
Last edited:
I hadn't read back through previous pages on this thread, so it's entirely coincidental that, in the course of making my own point about what and who we may permit ourselves to call new, I mentioned two artists who covered that particular song - Dylan on his first album and the Animals I assume on theirs.
I suspect most people understand the concept that House of the Rising Sun itself is not a new song, seeing as it came to particular prominence in the first half of the 1960s and wasn't new then either. Truly you are flogging a dead horse.
I suspect most people understand the concept that House of the Rising Sun itself is not a new song, seeing as it came to particular prominence in the first half of the 1960s and wasn't new then either. Truly you are flogging a dead horse.
Last edited:
Yes, but you are trying to apply an overly narrow Webster's definition of "song" where it does not belong.
If somebody in 1988 said "Did you hear UB40's new song?", there is no way in conversational English that that statement would be wrong, or anywhere close to wrong. If you responded to them, "There is no new song, Neil Diamond recorded that song in 1967", how do you think that would go in any real-world conversation?
In conversational context, "song" means the specific rendition of the song you are talking about. The composition of a song is only one element of the overall performance. That's why there are separate "performance" royalties (for the band) and "songwriting" royalties for the songwriter(s).
The word you are thinking of is "composition" -- not song. Composition is specific and unique. "Song" is not unique because the composition is only one element (the other elements are the individual performers, the style, the arrangement, the tempo, the instrumentation, etc.).
Last edited:
BamaBilly
Motorcycles and Music
So if an old song gets re-recorded it’s new music? What if the same artist re-recorded the song, is that new music too?
Pio1980
AK Member
I haven't been listening to much music at all lately, mostly "classical" when I do, and some older faves ca 60s-80s that may come to mind.
NPR often features newer artists and music, which I generally enjoy for the insight from the interviews.
It was easier in the older days to keep up from radio play, esp when freeform FM ruled, but now there is so much stuff getting exposure, including quality efforts, that keeping up is as difficult as it is exciting. It was, what, ca 30 years ago the ever-progressive "olde fogey" Wayne Green was producing CD samplers of new music he thought deserved attention. There's always been a lot, wish I could be more involved, but my lifelong musical curiosity has unfortunately diminished. Now, to go back and read the thread.
That might help.
NPR often features newer artists and music, which I generally enjoy for the insight from the interviews.
It was easier in the older days to keep up from radio play, esp when freeform FM ruled, but now there is so much stuff getting exposure, including quality efforts, that keeping up is as difficult as it is exciting. It was, what, ca 30 years ago the ever-progressive "olde fogey" Wayne Green was producing CD samplers of new music he thought deserved attention. There's always been a lot, wish I could be more involved, but my lifelong musical curiosity has unfortunately diminished. Now, to go back and read the thread.
That might help.
Last edited:
Pio1980
AK Member
A perspective to consider:
Music from the 50s and 60s is still getting played more or less regularly.
Go back sixty years to 1962 and consider then going back another 60 years to 1902 for music that was still getting regularly played and enjoyed in 1962. Ragtime anyone?
To be fair, there was a brief ragtime revival in the early 1970s with the release of "The Sting", and the wonderful appearances of Eubie Blake on Johnny Carson's Tonight show.
Music from the 50s and 60s is still getting played more or less regularly.
Go back sixty years to 1962 and consider then going back another 60 years to 1902 for music that was still getting regularly played and enjoyed in 1962. Ragtime anyone?
To be fair, there was a brief ragtime revival in the early 1970s with the release of "The Sting", and the wonderful appearances of Eubie Blake on Johnny Carson's Tonight show.
Last edited:
JoeESP9
ESL's & tubes since 83
My bad. I guess I was misinformed about Jacintha.
Regardless, she sings jazz standards better than most of them out there. Plus, the label she records for (Groove Note) makes superb sounding recordings. They are all recorded live to a two-track master using a minimal number of microphones into a passive mixer with no studio "sweetening".
I spent many years living in GB and other EU countries while growing up as a military brat. That many artists, especially British, sing like a southern American is something I noticed years ago. Those same artists when speaking have unmistakable British accents.
